The Third Rail -- 3rd Party Thread

[Pogo]

They're not going to dump Donald

They may or may not have the political will but don't be too sure. They did it in 1912 when the primaries were swept through, rather easily in fact, by another bombastic orator from New York who his critics called an egomaniac. The convention ended up denying the guy with all the primary votes and nominating the Establishment guy from Ohio, who had won a total of one primary state. Stop me when this starts to sound familiar.

Bottom line is the Republican Party, or any party, is its own entity and can do whatever it wants. Primaries and delegates are its own system within its own rules, and if it sees fit to bend those rules to what works best, it can and will, and there's already precedents.

This isn't the topic here, though it's worth mentioning that when all that went down in 1912, the snubbed New York candidate took his delegates down the street, formed his own third party on the spot, and ended up siphoning off so much vote from the official Republican nominee that the 3P guy came in second, drove the Republican down to 3rd place, and put the Democrat into office with less than 42% of the popular vote --- but a huge majority in the Electoral College.

he dems are stuck with the worst candidate since McGovern.

There is no place outside the internetic Echobubble where that's even remotely close to reality. Checked any polls?

If your vote doesn't count, there's no reason to stick with either of these loathsome people.

Fine, then that's what this thread is for. Bring in your alternative and tell us about them.

What do polls have to do with anything when the two major candidates have the highest negative ratings of anyone other than satan? LOL

"Negatives" are really not part of the equation. An election is a race between alternatives. That means context. And that means given a choice of being wacked on the head with a hammer or boiled alive, you choose the less undesirable negative.

Every candidate ever has negatives. Care to examine Abe Lincoln's negatives and what the popular sentiment was about him?

The alternatives? Are you DEAF? the gop ran a bunch of old farts with supply side tax cuts, and Rubio who was still using training wheels.

Are you illiterate? This thread is about alternatives TO EVERYTHING YOU JUST MENTIONED. That's kind of what "third party" means -- you don't like the Republicans, you don't like the Democrats ---- bring an alternative.

Good god man, have you read the fucking OP?

Hillary's fund raising scared off everyone but a silly old socialist whom everyone though was a joke, and who would have won except he'd ignored blacks since 1968. LOL

Bernie has the highest approval rating of anyone in the Senate actually. But his history is only familiar to Vermont and political junkies, not to the street; Hillary had a presence in the White House for 8 years and in the Cabinet for a few more. That's the difference there.

But again, that's not the topic here. Learn to read.

 

[bendog]

They're not going to dump Donald

They may or may not have the political will but don't be too sure. They did it in 1912 when the primaries were swept through, rather easily in fact, by another bombastic orator from New York who his critics called an egomaniac. The convention ended up denying the guy with all the primary votes and nominating the Establishment guy from Ohio, who had won a total of one primary state. Stop me when this starts to sound familiar.

Bottom line is the Republican Party, or any party, is its own entity and can do whatever it wants. Primaries and delegates are its own system within its own rules, and if it sees fit to bend those rules to what works best, it can and will, and there's already precedents.

This isn't the topic here, though it's worth mentioning that when all that went down in 1912, the snubbed New York candidate took his delegates down the street, formed his own third party on the spot, and ended up siphoning off so much vote from the official Republican nominee that the 3P guy came in second, drove the Republican down to 3rd place, and put the Democrat into office with less than 42% of the popular vote --- but a huge majority in the Electoral College.

he dems are stuck with the worst candidate since McGovern.

There is no place outside the internetic Echobubble where that's even remotely close to reality. Checked any polls?

If your vote doesn't count, there's no reason to stick with either of these loathsome people.

Fine, then that's what this thread is for. Bring in your alternative and tell us about them.

What do polls have to do with anything when the two major candidates have the highest negative ratings of anyone other than satan? LOL

"Negatives" are really not part of the equation. An election is a race between alternatives. That means context. And that means given a choice of being wacked on the head with a hammer or boiled alive, you choose the less undesirable negative.

Every candidate ever has negatives. Care to examine Abe Lincoln's negatives and what the popular sentiment was about him?

The alternatives? Are you DEAF? the gop ran a bunch of old farts with supply side tax cuts, and Rubio who was still using training wheels.

Are you illiterate? This thread is about alternatives TO EVERYTHING YOU JUST MENTIONED. That's kind of what "third party" means -- you don't like the Republicans, you don't like the Democrats ---- bring an alternative.

Good god man, have you read the fucking OP?

Hillary's fund raising scared off everyone but a silly old socialist whom everyone though was a joke, and who would have won except he'd ignored blacks since 1968. LOL

Bernie has the highest approval rating of anyone in the Senate actually. But his history is only familiar to Vermont and political junkies, not to the street; Hillary had a presence in the White House for 8 years and in the Cabinet for a few more. That's the difference there.

But again, that's not the topic here. Learn to read.

I think you won the debate with yourself. I'll vote Johnson.

 

[Pogo]

They're not going to dump Donald

They may or may not have the political will but don't be too sure. They did it in 1912 when the primaries were swept through, rather easily in fact, by another bombastic orator from New York who his critics called an egomaniac. The convention ended up denying the guy with all the primary votes and nominating the Establishment guy from Ohio, who had won a total of one primary state. Stop me when this starts to sound familiar.

Bottom line is the Republican Party, or any party, is its own entity and can do whatever it wants. Primaries and delegates are its own system within its own rules, and if it sees fit to bend those rules to what works best, it can and will, and there's already precedents.

This isn't the topic here, though it's worth mentioning that when all that went down in 1912, the snubbed New York candidate took his delegates down the street, formed his own third party on the spot, and ended up siphoning off so much vote from the official Republican nominee that the 3P guy came in second, drove the Republican down to 3rd place, and put the Democrat into office with less than 42% of the popular vote --- but a huge majority in the Electoral College.

he dems are stuck with the worst candidate since McGovern.

There is no place outside the internetic Echobubble where that's even remotely close to reality. Checked any polls?

If your vote doesn't count, there's no reason to stick with either of these loathsome people.

Fine, then that's what this thread is for. Bring in your alternative and tell us about them.

What do polls have to do with anything when the two major candidates have the highest negative ratings of anyone other than satan? LOL

"Negatives" are really not part of the equation. An election is a race between alternatives. That means context. And that means given a choice of being wacked on the head with a hammer or boiled alive, you choose the less undesirable negative.

Every candidate ever has negatives. Care to examine Abe Lincoln's negatives and what the popular sentiment was about him?

The alternatives? Are you DEAF? the gop ran a bunch of old farts with supply side tax cuts, and Rubio who was still using training wheels.

Are you illiterate? This thread is about alternatives TO EVERYTHING YOU JUST MENTIONED. That's kind of what "third party" means -- you don't like the Republicans, you don't like the Democrats ---- bring an alternative.

Good god man, have you read the fucking OP?

Hillary's fund raising scared off everyone but a silly old socialist whom everyone though was a joke, and who would have won except he'd ignored blacks since 1968. LOL

Bernie has the highest approval rating of anyone in the Senate actually. But his history is only familiar to Vermont and political junkies, not to the street; Hillary had a presence in the White House for 8 years and in the Cabinet for a few more. That's the difference there.

But again, that's not the topic here. Learn to read.

I think you won the debate with yourself. I'll vote Johnson.

That was like pulling teeth. Thanks for finally abandoning the deflection and figuring out that a thread on "third parties" is not the place for incessant harangues on the first two parties.

Which reminds me of a favourite quote I should have put in the OP:

"As for a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we forgot that in order to form a third party you must first have two other parties" --- Gore Vidal

 

[bendog]

They're not going to dump Donald

They may or may not have the political will but don't be too sure. They did it in 1912 when the primaries were swept through, rather easily in fact, by another bombastic orator from New York who his critics called an egomaniac. The convention ended up denying the guy with all the primary votes and nominating the Establishment guy from Ohio, who had won a total of one primary state. Stop me when this starts to sound familiar.

Bottom line is the Republican Party, or any party, is its own entity and can do whatever it wants. Primaries and delegates are its own system within its own rules, and if it sees fit to bend those rules to what works best, it can and will, and there's already precedents.

This isn't the topic here, though it's worth mentioning that when all that went down in 1912, the snubbed New York candidate took his delegates down the street, formed his own third party on the spot, and ended up siphoning off so much vote from the official Republican nominee that the 3P guy came in second, drove the Republican down to 3rd place, and put the Democrat into office with less than 42% of the popular vote --- but a huge majority in the Electoral College.

he dems are stuck with the worst candidate since McGovern.

There is no place outside the internetic Echobubble where that's even remotely close to reality. Checked any polls?

If your vote doesn't count, there's no reason to stick with either of these loathsome people.

Fine, then that's what this thread is for. Bring in your alternative and tell us about them.

What do polls have to do with anything when the two major candidates have the highest negative ratings of anyone other than satan? LOL

"Negatives" are really not part of the equation. An election is a race between alternatives. That means context. And that means given a choice of being wacked on the head with a hammer or boiled alive, you choose the less undesirable negative.

Every candidate ever has negatives. Care to examine Abe Lincoln's negatives and what the popular sentiment was about him?

The alternatives? Are you DEAF? the gop ran a bunch of old farts with supply side tax cuts, and Rubio who was still using training wheels.

Are you illiterate? This thread is about alternatives TO EVERYTHING YOU JUST MENTIONED. That's kind of what "third party" means -- you don't like the Republicans, you don't like the Democrats ---- bring an alternative.

Good god man, have you read the fucking OP?

Hillary's fund raising scared off everyone but a silly old socialist whom everyone though was a joke, and who would have won except he'd ignored blacks since 1968. LOL

Bernie has the highest approval rating of anyone in the Senate actually. But his history is only familiar to Vermont and political junkies, not to the street; Hillary had a presence in the White House for 8 years and in the Cabinet for a few more. That's the difference there.

But again, that's not the topic here. Learn to read.

I think you won the debate with yourself. I'll vote Johnson.

That was like pulling teeth. Thanks for finally abandoning the deflection and figuring out that a thread on "third parties" is not the place for incessant harangues on the first two parties.

Which reminds me of a favourite quote I should have put in the OP:

"As for a third party, we tried that in 1972, the People's Party. Unfortunately we forgot that in order to form a third party you must first have two other parties" --- Gore Vidal

Pulling teeth? I wasn't disagreeing. LOL

too bad about the bern. The dims should have run someone mainstream against Hill.

 

[g5000]

You need to vote. Write in a vote, if need be.

If you don't vote, it will be interpreted by both parties as apathy. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", you are telling the lesser evil he/she is doing something right, which is the LAST thing you want to communicate to evil.

So you need to send a big FUCK YOU to both of them and vote for someone else. Someone you believe in.

 

[mgh80]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results. America keeps voting in the same 2 parties, and we still keep going downhill.

 

[JoeB131]

Not shooting for the next Ralph Nader.. We have 2 vetted and proven governors. Pretty hard to overlook that ticket if you're an Independent or a disenfranchised Rep or Dem. .

We are the Blue Dog Democrats that your party chased out of the South. And we are the Tea Party without the social baggage. We ARE unique and fit the American 30% Independent demographic completely.

If THAT 30% ever gets fired up to go the polls --- like you party animals do -- there will be a different result than "ralph nader"..

There's a 50/50 chance I might vote for Johnson and Weld, as long as i'm sure that Hillary will beat Trump. the real problem you guys have is that a lot of folks talk about a third party, but they still go for the "lesser of two evils' every time. It's why no third party candidate has won in, well, 165 years if you want to count the GOP as a third party. (Which it probably wasn't, as the Whigs were moribund at that point.)

The reality is, if Johnson and Weld do well enough to toss it into congress, they'd still lose. they'd have to get 50% outright. and they ain't going to do that with Gary "I promise not to smoke weed" Johnson.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seriously. Read this.

Platform

 

[Skull Pilot]

 

[JoeB131]

There's only two good reasons to vote for Johnson.

1) To show your displeasure of what a mess the two major parties have made nominating the clowns they did.

2) To make sure that the Libertarians get enough votes to qualify for matching funds and continue to fuck with the GOP.

Beyond that, Hillary is the lesser evil to Trump, if the GOP doesn't have a bout of good sense and stop him before the convention.

 

[mgh80]

There's only two good reasons to vote for Johnson.

1) To show your displeasure of what a mess the two major parties have made nominating the clowns they did.

2) To make sure that the Libertarians get enough votes to qualify for matching funds and continue to fuck with the GOP.

Beyond that, Hillary is the lesser evil to Trump, if the GOP doesn't have a bout of good sense and stop him before the convention.

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

 

[G.T.]

I dont remember posting in this thread. Hrm life is like a box of chocolates, and so are usmb alerts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not shooting for the next Ralph Nader.. We have 2 vetted and proven governors. Pretty hard to overlook that ticket if you're an Independent or a disenfranchised Rep or Dem. .

We are the Blue Dog Democrats that your party chased out of the South. And we are the Tea Party without the social baggage. We ARE unique and fit the American 30% Independent demographic completely.

If THAT 30% ever gets fired up to go the polls --- like you party animals do -- there will be a different result than "ralph nader"..

There's a 50/50 chance I might vote for Johnson and Weld, as long as i'm sure that Hillary will beat Trump. the real problem you guys have is that a lot of folks talk about a third party, but they still go for the "lesser of two evils' every time. It's why no third party candidate has won in, well, 165 years if you want to count the GOP as a third party. (Which it probably wasn't, as the Whigs were moribund at that point.)

The reality is, if Johnson and Weld do well enough to toss it into congress, they'd still lose. they'd have to get 50% outright. and they ain't going to do that with Gary "I promise not to smoke weed" Johnson.

Lots of things at stake that don't have to do with "winning".. Americans need to start thinking more about their Country and less about having one of two parties "win".. Because that's leading directly to our demise as a Republic.

One thing at stake --- not well known -- is that EVERY vote we get, saves us MOUNTAINS of time and money on the NEXT cycle. Means we don't have to knock ourselves out completely, before the contest starts, just jumping thru petition and court challenges just to BE on the ballots. So we appreciate folks like you who appreciate having a rational choice out there when things go this badly.. Even IF -- you just kick us around for being "losers" and potheads for the next 3 years.

Take a look.. We haven't changed on our policy positions in 30 years. America has changed. We were just AHEAD of the sentiments.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's only two good reasons to vote for Johnson.

1) To show your displeasure of what a mess the two major parties have made nominating the clowns they did.

2) To make sure that the Libertarians get enough votes to qualify for matching funds and continue to fuck with the GOP.

Beyond that, Hillary is the lesser evil to Trump, if the GOP doesn't have a bout of good sense and stop him before the convention.

We would probably would not take matching funds --- even if they were available. But as in the last post. Voters help us with every vote cast. If we didn't have to spend $30Mill to get ON the ballots -- that would be our "matching funds".